Predicatori pornofoni? Da, există. Există un gen de predicatori care cred că singura modalitate de adresare către publicul tînăr este limbajul „tare”, cu „sare şi piper”.
Dacă vorbesc despre „prietenie” sînt plini de glume deocheate, dacă dau sfaturi pre-, maritale, şi post-, atunci discursul capătă nuanţe aproape pornofonice. Aşa-zisele „conferinţe pe teme de familie” fac deliciul unora care găsesc prilej pentru mîngîierea firii pămînteşti. Oamenii duhovniceşti sînt chinuiţi, cei care oricum nu şi-au tăiat împrejur inima celebrează.
Există lucruri care nu trebuie scoase din ascuns. Cred că Evdochimov spunea că sînt lucruri care ţin de viaţa de familie şi care nici în faţa duhovnicului nu trebuie spuse pentru a nu ne ispiti pe noi încă o dată, dar nici pe el.
Ei, noi avem impresia că acum este cazul să vorbim „deschis” despre „ce face omul cu femeia lui”. Parcă n-am şti! Parcă toţi bătrînii noştri au avut nevoie de instrucţiuni ca noi să existăm. Dar nu, ei insistă să ne înveţe „arta dragostei”.
Nici capra vecinului nu şade prea bine pe picioare. Un articol dur, dar necesar loveşte în aceste tendinţe ale lumii evanghelice americane, tendinţe care de ceva ani se văd şi la noi în tîrlă.
Evangelical sex manuals have been all the rage as long as I have been a believer, going back to the early 1970s. You had Marabel Morgan’s The Total Woman in 1972, which generated tons of evangelical sex-talk. (Marabel was known for—among other things—a kinky suggestion involving the use of Saran Wrap as a dressing gown.) You had Ed Wheat’s book Intended for Pleasure: Sex Technique and Sexual Fulfillment just five years later. It has sold multiple millions of copies. Even Tim Lahaye wrote a surprisingly candid sex manual, The Act of Marriage in the mid-1970s. Having sold more than two and a half million copies, that book is still in print.
Yet evangelicals have been complaining for decades that we don’t talk enough or hear enough teaching about sex. From the point of view of many non-evangelicals, sex is about the only thing evangelicals have demonstrated a serious and sustained interest in for the past 40 years. As early as 1977, Martin Marty, a liberal religious scholar, referred to the trend as „Fundies in their Undies.”
So the premise that evangelical churches are in desperate need of more and more explicit instruction on sex techniques is a risible falsehood.
But evangelical leaders who aspire to be at the vanguard in this trend have to keep looking for even kinkier ways to contextualize their Kama Sutras and spice up their „sexperimentation.” Ed Young, Jr., for instance, announced this weekend that he and his wife „will spend 24 hours in bed on the church roof next week and stream themselves live on the Internet to encourage married couples to see firsthand the power of a healthy sex life.”
I doubt any regular TeamPyro reader (including some of our longtime critics) would think us too censorious for saying that’s a profane and shameful way to deal with a sacred subject.
It’s yet another sign of evangelicalism’s growing conformity to worldly values and worldly behavior. The various evangelical coalitions and young Reformed movements that looked so encouraging five years ago have done more to encourage and enable this kind of exhibitionism than to challenge it. These things ought not to be.
How bad will it have to get before true leaders in the church and in the various gospel-centered movements find their voices and start calling the church—and some of these out-of-control exhibitionist preachers—to repentance? I for one hope we get an answer to that question before very long. I pray for it every day
Ah, a propos, de Sexperiment. Am primit video-ul prin Churchleader.com. Pot să spun „mulţumesc lui Dumnezeu că nu sînt rudă cu ăştia? fiu, naş, cumnat, cuscru?” E păcat? Şi dacă ne aşează Dumnezeu pe toţi în cer, pot să îl rog: „Doamne, te rog frumos, ştiu că am încă de plătit păcatele, dar dă-mi alt lăcaş, că în cerul tău sînt multe lăcaşuri! Dacă iei şi zghihuiţi în lăcaşurile tale, Te rog, nu la un loc cu aceştia!”
PS. Iată aici şi excelentul text al lui Carl Trueman, elegant, aluziv, dar la fel de coroziv.
I have often in the past stood with those who laughed at what we regarded as the ignorant, unsophisticated taboos of the older generation. But now I worry about the ease with which the rising generation talks explicitly of ‘the fruitless deeds of darkness’ in the name of cultural engagement, fear of being thought passé or simply a desire to slough off the legalisms of their fathers in the faith. You can, after all, get to heaven without ever having seen an R-Rated art house movie or having enjoyed a spectacular love life.
Here’s a question: would it make any difference to you, any difference at all to the way you talk, to what you watch, to the way you „engage culture”, if Eph. 5:12 had never been written?
între timp am mai găsit cîteva articole bune despre chestiune.
Iată ce spune John MacArthur despre Violarea Cîntării cîntărilor AICI.
O recenzie dură, dar extrem de bine articulată AICI.
Şi un alt articol al lui Carl Trueman AICI
the reduction of sex to a set of physical acts seems to play to the idolatries of the world around, and this reduction can be the result as much of the way we talk about sex as the content of what we say. I find it significant, for example, that we now routinely talk of `having sex’ rather than `making love.’ Perhaps the latter is somewhat archaic but it still carries with it emotional, relational and loving connotations which the former lacks entirely. A man can have sex with a prostitute; he can only make love to one to whom he is emotionally connected.
The Bible’s refusal to reduce sex to physical acts is surely one of the reasons why it uses poetry to describe it. Poetry communicates meaning and significance which cannot be reduced simply to the reference; and the turning of the Song of Songs primarily into a sex manual is arguably a greater act of reductionism than jumping straight from the text to Christ and the church. This is important because reducing the importance of sex to the physical is one of the greatest moral errors of the spirit of this age, and the current penchant for explicit content in sermons seems rather to stand in continuity with this spirit than to be a prophetic sign against it.